From the video of the breastplate registrar of the police patrol inspector, it was found that the driver, having left the yard area, crossed the street and was immediately stopped by a police patrol inspector. At the same time, the court found that any street marking specified in the decree was absent, and therefore there are grounds for canceling the decision of the inspector.

With such a decision of the court of first instance, the appellate and cassation courts also agreed.

The Supreme Court, in particular, noted that the separation of traffic flows in opposite directions, including those with roads having four or more lanes, indicating the lanes of traffic in the presence of two or more lanes intended to move in one direction, is denoted by lines of horizontal marking in accordance with the requirements established by section 34 of the Traffic Rules.

Therefore, the lack of marking indicates the lack of evidence of driver's fault and the absence of a violation by the plaintiff of the rules of crossing the marking lines, and as a consequence, the commission of an offense, which consists in crossing the opposite side of the road, which has two lanes for movement in one direction (the decree of 09/22/2018 in the case№ 334/3798/17).